2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Well, what is more detailed and better looking will be a very personal choice.  I would say to anybody take a look at what's possible with each flightsim, not just what's 'out of the box'.  XP wins for me, but we are all different. 

I agree entirely. So much so that a big portion of my personal Black Friday shopping was hard drive space - for XP scenery. 🙂

9 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Yep, agreed. If there was just ONE thing I'd love to see Laminar do, it's launch their own XP marketplace.

30% of every addon sold? LR would've made thou$and$ off me by now, instead of just $180...

This is a big one IMHO. If they had started their own store instead of the dreadful .org with say XP10 or 11, they would be in a completely different situation today, or at least they could be.

Now that the old thinking of "basically everything in flight simming costs extra" got fundamentally challenged, it's a difficult situation. They would need to start the store now in a very different market environment.

 

9 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

it's just math

Good to know about those defaults+CFD.

The way you talk, a 'saving world hunger' feature like CFD should be a quick fix to implement and magically resolve all flight model problems associated with the balsa-glider geometry. Especially for resources out the wazoo like Asobo.

But it isn't that. Their FM CFD is hot garbage. Sorry...that's FM in general.

PMDG not only called CFD a 'buzzword', but also very clearly stated that they ignore Asobo's default FM. Garbage.

 

If pure FPS was the only metric for computational efficiency, fs2020 should be getting 3ish times the FPS without any form of DLSS or FSR. Right now it only gets ~50% more. Thank you for another fantastic way to describe 'relative inefficiency'. Please, keep talking.

 

This be the internwebs. A teeth-gnashing forum no less. Nobody believes credentials.

Though with statements like your's above, we can sure pick out the hot-air-spewing-pom-pom-tossers.

37 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Wrong. Please quote.

that is what we were talking about when you launched into "glaring deficiencies" - changing the formula for swept wings at the request of commercial customers.

Its been fine for entertainment purposes for decades, and will be no less fine when its brought up to faa requirements.

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by mSparks

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

pretty much what I said a few pages back yes, glad you came around.

No, not at all. 

Though it's immaterial to the discussion of whether MSFS is a flight simulator or not, you keep dragging in tidbits like this as though it proves MSFS is deficient.

All it shows is that X-Plane is a professional-grade flight simulator that has gone through the arduous process of being certified - which fact has never been under debate. We know X-Plane is great!

How that proves your claim that MSFS is a game and not a flight simulator is beyond me, but okay...

And we have YET to see you (or anyone) show any evidence of X-Plane being used AT SCALE, such as the DoD program linked above.

I personally would love it if the DoD were using X-Plane in a similar manner to how they're using Prepar3D.

But they're not. They're using Prepar3D. Which (at least in the consumer space) does not deliver good flight models or the other advantages X-Plane offers.

So if the big training programs are training IRL combat pilots with a "less realistic" / "worse" simulator than X-Plane, it means the truth of the matter is that X-Plane's superior flight model and rapid prototyping simply don't matter enough to give them the biz.

So please get back to backing up your claim that MSFS is only an Xbox game and not a flight simulator...?

1 hour ago, Daube said:

top speed of Mach 2.34 at around 40.000 feet in full clean configuration, if I'm not mistaken.

top speed in mach altitude makes no difference - altitude just makes a difference in how efficiently it does the journey in terms of fuel consumption.

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

top speed in mach altitude makes no difference - altitude just makes a difference in how efficiently it does the journey in terms of fuel consumption.

Oh, good lord, no it does NOT! 😂

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

top speed in mach altitude makes no difference - altitude just makes a difference in how efficiently it does the journey in terms of fuel consumption.

Are you trying to escape with some non-sense again ?

Your message was about going Mach 2+ in a Tomcat at very low altitude. This is NOT possible. A Tomcat can only reach it's max speed at high altitude. At low altitude, it will be able to get past Mach 1, but it will never reach Mach 2.

 

11 minutes ago, Daube said:

Are you trying to escape with some non-sense again ?

Your message was about going Mach 2+ in a Tomcat at very low altitude. This is NOT possible. A Tomcat can only reach it's max speed at high altitude. At low altitude, it will be able to get past Mach 1, but it will never reach Mach 2.

 

1. its top speed is significantly more than mach 2.

2. yes I "simulated" more than mach 2 at very low altitude in the new Tomcat, if you want to stop that take your formula to Austin and make your case, me happy.

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by mSparks

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

That's the most ridiculous thing about MSFS flight model.

When I found out it worked that way, I was like 😳😱

Springs under a rocking chair. Good enough for xbox! 

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

1. its top speed is more than mach 2.

2. yes I "simulated" more than mach 2 at very low altitude in the new tomcat, if you want to stop that take your formula to austin and make your case, me happy.

1: yes, we ALL know that. Top speed is Mach 2.34, and that top speed can be reached at 40.000 feet. Not at 30.000 feet, and especially not at 200 feet agl, no matter how high your valley was.

2: yes, we also understood you "simulated" it, meaning that you literally reached Mach 2.0 or more in a Tomcat at 200 feet AGL in XPlane12. Nobody misunderstood that. What we are telling you is: a real Tomcat could not reach that speed in real life, so there is definitely something wrong in the flight model of that plane in XP12 🙂

For example, Mach 2.0 at sea level means flying at 1320 knots according to this tool: https://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm

Nice to see the XP12 flight model allows a Tomcat to fly so fast.

6 minutes ago, Daube said:

meaning that you literally reached Mach 2.0 or more in a Tomcat at 200 feet AGL in XPlane12.

I could be wrong, pretty sure thats what M 2.0 means centre left the hud

You want to claim that is wrong, feel free to take your formula to Austin and prove it, I have no interest in reducing it thnx.

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I could be wrong, pretty sure thats what M 2.0 means centre left the hud

You want to claim that is wrong, feel free to take your formula to Austin and prove it, I have no interest in reducing it thnx.

That is one AMAZING tomcat.

10 minutes ago, Daube said:

What we are telling you is: a real Tomcat could not reach that speed in real life, so there is definitely something wrong in the flight model of that plane in XP12 🙂

For example, Mach 2.0 at sea level means flying at 1320 knots according to this tool: https://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm

Nice to see the XP12 flight model allows a Tomcat to fly so fast.

Good for a morning read gents!

@Daube Sounds correct to me.

From my limited aviation knowledge, higher speeds are achieved with higher altitudes mainly due to the thinner atmosphere. I think this applies to the majority of aircraft and certainly fighter jets. If the Tomcat goes at Mach 2.0 close to sea level, I’d say something is wrong in the flight model math.

Am I reading this correctly? The burden is on reality to disprove the simulation?!? Surely I’m misunderstanding this.